The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 9.12 PewDiePie Pulls Donation After Backlash, Dobrik Plane, SCOTUS Immigration Ruling, & More

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you're having a fantastic day. Welcome back to the Phil DeFranco show. I'm Phil DeFranco and let's just Jump right into it Is that good? And then I promptly fired Casey Neistat, great guy, amazing vlogger, horrible PDS host. Wouldn't even legally change his name to Philip DeFranco like an amateur But even though I just fired Casey Neistat, if you would like to listen to our brand new podcast Which I actually just uploaded before this video, one, you can either listen to it on iTunes

Starting point is 00:00:28 and or wherever the hell else, link down below, or you can listen and watch it on the brand new YouTube channel, youtube.com slash a convo with. Link to it down below. We had a fantastic chat. I feel like I always walk away from the talks with him with just new information that I can use in my life.

Starting point is 00:00:41 Yeah, after today's video, I highly recommend you check it out. I always include those links in the description. Also be sure to subscribe. Right now I've been uploading once a week. I love it. It's just a fantastic break from, you know, the news can get you down.

Starting point is 00:00:51 But with all of that said, buckle in, hit that like button and let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're gonna talk about today is we actually had YouTube and just in general, mega star David Dobrik in the news. This, because of some controversy and some criticism. On Tuesday, Dobrik uploaded a new video to his mega successful, mega huge channel,

Starting point is 00:01:08 and around the last minute of it, it features jokes about a plane crash. And then reportedly the next day, 9-11, that video began trending. Right, and so you had a number of people angry, thinking that it's tasteless, that you're making plane crashing jokes on 9-11. Following some of this, we saw Dobrik then private the video.

Starting point is 00:01:23 And as far as my opinion on this, I think in large this is kind of a nothing burger. And understand, I say this as someone that I am actually somewhat sensitive to 9-11 jokes. Like, I'm not trying to cancel people's careers over those jokes, but they make me feel uncomfortable. But this is what? But the thing is, that's not even what happened here. Like, just looking at the facts of the situation, he uploaded it on 9-10. Yes, there are jokes in the video about a plane crashing, but there's nothing related to terrorism, any reference to 9-11 specifically. Here, because the internet's forever, here's a small clip. Can't be fixed, man. Fuckers going down. I read the manual! Is that the pilot?

Starting point is 00:01:58 Huh? Uh, no. Hey guys, it's your captain speaking. I got some bad news and some good news. Bad news is we're crash landing. Good news is we're going to be on the ground a lot sooner than expected. Yeah, bring extra gas! It's a fucking plane, you fuckhead!

Starting point is 00:02:16 Right, so is the timing less than ideal? Yes. Right, and this idea that, you know, privating the video, it's a submission of guilt. No, it's not. It's incredibly likely. One, there were some people that were offended and he was like, ah, I don't want to offend them. Or two, he just knew how the internet worked

Starting point is 00:02:28 and he just wanted to avoid controversy. You know, that's my takeaway on it. Maybe you have a different one. And then we also had an update on the PewDiePie, aka Felix situation we talked about yesterday. And if you didn't see that, so to kind of oversimplify, Felix announced that he would be donating $50,000 to the ADL.

Starting point is 00:02:42 Which is an organization that fights bigotry and prejudice in all its forms. And that was something that caught fans off guard for a number of reasons000 to the ADL. Which is an organization that fights bigotry and prejudice in all its forms. And that was something that caught fans off guard for a number of reasons, including the ADL in the past, back in 2017. Their CEO cheered on Disney for severing ties with him. And this then turned into a situation where a number of people were saying,

Starting point is 00:02:56 you know, was Felix blackmailed? That was kind of the main focus yesterday, the conspiracy theories around this, because people can have whatever opinion regarding the actual donation itself, whether it was good or bad. Some people were saying that, you know, Felix had stabbed the YouTube community in the back. But, you know, the blackmail conspiracy theories, that made no sense.

Starting point is 00:03:10 And I mean that for a number of reasons, including who blackmails someone worth tens of millions of dollars for $50,000? That's just not smart blackmail, in my opinion. You know, yesterday, Felix had also issued a statement on Twitter. And there, he mentioned the Christchurch shooting, which, of course, the lunatic behind that mentioned his name. But the update around the situation today is that Felix has now spoken on this in a video. Regarding the decision to choose the ADL specifically, he says, a charity that I'm personally passionate about which is 100% my fault. Usually when I pick a charity I take my time. I find a charity that I'm really excited about and actually passionate to

Starting point is 00:03:51 donate to. So when I uploaded the video talking about the charity it was very brief and people could tell something was off. The whole internet just didn't believe it. Like, why is he donating to this charity? Look at his face. Full conspiracy mode. And it was very interesting to watch that unfold. He then goes on to kind of talk about the intent and his headspace after Christchurch, which was something that we talked about yesterday as well. To be fair, I saw it as an opportunity to put an end to these alt-right claims that has been thrown against me. It wasn't to try and clear my name or save grace.

Starting point is 00:04:24 If it was, I would have done it years ago. But after the Christchurch tragedy, I felt a responsibility to do something about it because it's no longer just about me. It affected other people in a way and I'm not okay with that. I've struggled to figure out how to do that, but this was not the right way to go about it. I knew it wasn't perfect, but I also didn't know a lot of things that surfaced throughout this whole thing about the charity that doesn't fit at all. And then he further explains that all of this

Starting point is 00:04:53 was orchestrated around the time that, you know, he was getting prepped to get married. He should have dedicated time to it. He issues an apology and he says he will not be making the donation. And so that's the story as it is now. And of course, it'll always be interesting to see how people react to it.

Starting point is 00:05:04 You know, a lot of people that were angry at him are they gonna be like, okay good He listened to the audience or are they gonna see this as a hollow move? To the people that were previously happy about the announced donation Are they gonna see this as kind of Felix backtracking cowering to his audience? Also will this increase the number of conspiracy theories where people are like well, it's actually 4D chess Felix is playing ignorant But this was actually a way to hit the ADL whereas I personally think that the answer to a lot of things is usually the most simple version. Like I mentioned yesterday, I think that he was trying to create some separation between him and stuff like Christchurch.

Starting point is 00:05:31 Because once again, that horrible shooting happening and then the, you know, the inclusion of your name and then the articles afterwards, like, I don't know what that does to your head. And then he threw the money at an organization that he says was recommended. He was, you know, busy with life. And also kind of puts the brand that sponsored him in that video, Honey, in an odd place. Because at least in the video, it's not made clear if he was saying that Honey recommended that specific charity,

Starting point is 00:05:51 or maybe it's kind of this unnamed friend, maybe a lawyer or advisor of some sort. But yeah, that's the situation right now. I'm just looking at Twitter. People are going off on both sides. And actually, along those lines, I do pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts around all of this?

Starting point is 00:06:03 Where do you land on it and why? And then let's talk about former California judge, Aaron Persky, who you most likely know from the Brock Turner case. He was a judge who gave Brock Turner that very lenient six month sentence that Turner ended up only having to serve three months of, which is a judgment that actually resulted in Persky

Starting point is 00:06:18 being recalled in a California vote two years later. Right, and that was historic. California voters had not done that to a sitting judge since 1932. What's interesting is actually the update today is something that we were going to do a deep dive on. We had received a message from someone saying that they were from the school

Starting point is 00:06:32 that's actually at the core of this story. And they told us that Persky had actually been hired by their high school to coach tennis. But really before we could dive into it, the news broke that he had been fired. It turns out, yes, Persky was actually hired as a girls junior varsity tennis coach at a Bay Area high school.

Starting point is 00:06:46 The school district saying in a statement, "'He was a qualified applicant for the position, "'having attended several tennis coaching clinics for youth "'and holds a high rating "'from the United States Tennis Association.'" Reportedly, Persky's history and connection to the Brock Turner case came to light last week. The district saying, after this was learned,

Starting point is 00:06:59 the school district held a meeting with parents of athletes on the varsity and junior varsity girls tennis teams to provide parents with background on the situationity and junior varsity girls tennis teams to provide parents with background on the situation and ultimately his firing was believed to be in the best interest of our students and school community. Right and following this there were a number of reactions, some angry that he had even been hired in the first place, others just happy that he was fired. Although online there were also a number of people not happy that he was fired, some essentially arguing that he was not the one who committed the crime, also arguing that California voters already recalled him,

Starting point is 00:07:27 so didn't he essentially pay for what he did. Now as far as my opinion on this, regarding this specific situation, I have a hard time feeling bad for Persky here. Right, just to briefly look back to the Brock Turner case, prosecutors there wanted six years for Brock Turner. But as a report pointed out, but Mr. Persky followed the county probation department's

Starting point is 00:07:42 recommendation that the case may be considered less serious due to Brock Turner's level of intoxication and ordered him to serve six months. So if I was the parent of a young girl on this team, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable. I wouldn't personally believe that Persky had the wellbeing and safety of my child as a priority. And so, you know, if you have alumni, students, parents coming together and they feel that same way, then yeah.

Starting point is 00:08:04 You know, that's the story, some of my personal feelings on it, and of course I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts regarding what happened here? And then finally, let's talk about huge news involving the Supreme Court and the Trump administration. And what we're talking about is that the Supreme Court has issued an unsigned order allowing the Trump administration

Starting point is 00:08:17 to enforce a rule. And the rule in question was first issued by the Trump administration back in July. And it basically says that any migrant who has crossed through another country to get to the southern border of the United States cannot apply for asylum in the US, except in two main cases.

Starting point is 00:08:29 One, if the immigrant has been denied asylum in another country, and two, they have been a victim of quote, severe human trafficking. But a big thing to note there is people with those qualifiers, that doesn't mean that they're automatically granted asylum. It just means that they are the only ones who can even apply.

Starting point is 00:08:42 Okay, so right after the Trump administration announced this rule, it was challenged by immigrant rights groups in court. Then towards the end of July, a federal district judge in California blocked the rule, saying in his ruling that a decision to bar a group of people from asylum was a decision that had to be made by Congress. So as a result, he decided the administration's rule is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws. Also adding that it violated the APA, the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that there is a period of public comment before a rule is enacted. And in his decision, that judge

Starting point is 00:09:08 issued a nationwide injunction ordering the administration to continue to allow all asylum application. But then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said that that judge did not have the power to make the ruling nationwide. And while they did agree that the rule did go against the APA, they decided that the injunction could only apply to the geographic areas in the ninth district, which does include parts of California and Arizona, but also means that other border states could still enforce the administration's new rule. So then, last month,

Starting point is 00:09:32 Solicitor General Noel Francisco files an emergency application to the Supreme Court asking for them to put a stop to the block and to allow the rule from the Trump administration to be implemented nationwide while the legal battle continued, with Francisco arguing that Congress gives the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security power to place restrictions on Francisco arguing that Congress gives the departments of justice and homeland security power to place

Starting point is 00:09:46 restrictions on asylum seekers that go beyond the scope of the existing federal asylum law. Then we saw this past Monday, the same federal district judge reinstated his nationwide injunction, but again it was blocked by the Ninth Circuit, and again we saw the Trump administration ask the Supreme Court to lift the injunction, which brings us now full circle to the Supreme Court's

Starting point is 00:10:01 decision where they have allowed this rule to be enforced. Right, so with all of that said, let's talk about the implications of this rule and what impacts it could have. At the very top level, I mean, this is a massive change to the way the federal government has treated people seeking asylum under the laws that have been in place for the past four decades. Right, the current federal laws is that any foreign national

Starting point is 00:10:16 who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States can seek asylum in the country. That is as long as they can prove that they face persecution in their home country. Right, so a rule that allows the United States to deny most people showing up at the southern border the ability to even apply for asylum is huge.

Starting point is 00:10:30 And as explained by a legal brief given to the Supreme Court by the ACLU, the current ban would eliminate virtually all asylum at the southern border, even at ports of entry, for everyone except Mexicans who do not need to transit through a third country to reach the United States. And the ACLU also argued that the court should not permit

Starting point is 00:10:44 such a tectonic change to US asylum law, especially at the stay state. That brief also touched on the next point, which is who will be most affected by the rule. Change in asylum policy is believed to most heavily impact Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, many of whom are seeking asylum in the United States from gang violence and high levels of crime

Starting point is 00:10:59 in their home countries. And in fact, according to reports, Border Patrol has arrested 419,831 migrant family members from those three countries at the southwestern border so far this fiscal year. That compared with just 4,312 Mexican family members. Now reportedly, most of those families who have tried to enter the United States to get asylum

Starting point is 00:11:15 have been released to await court hearings. But the Justice Department is saying that more than 436,000 pending cases also include an asylum application. Also regarding this new rule, it's believed that this could hurt refugees fleeing the humanitarian economic crisis under the Maduro regime in Venezuela. According to the UN, more than four million people

Starting point is 00:11:30 have already left the country. And so as far as what this means for everyone else involved, right, the people, other countries, well, under the rule, Hondurans and Salvadorans are going to be required to seek asylum in Guatemala or Mexico first, then be denied asylum in those places, and then they can apply to the United States.

Starting point is 00:11:43 Guatemalans will have to seek and be denied asylum in Mexico., and then they can apply to the United States. Guatemalans will have to seek and be denied asylum in Mexico. Also notably, Guatemala and Mexico initially said that they are not okay with this plan, right? Because basically it would take the asylum problems the United States has and then kick them to them, thus overburdening their asylum system. But of note here, they have tentatively agreed,

Starting point is 00:11:58 although as others have pointed out, it was only after Trump had threatened both countries with tariffs. Also tentatively is a key word here. While the United States has struck a deal with Guatemala to take in more migrants, the country's constitutional court has ruled that it needs further approval.

Starting point is 00:12:09 Additionally, the Mexican government has recently pushed back against the agreement that would force them to take in asylum seekers from Guatemala. But ultimately, that is where we are right now, and it's gonna be very interesting to see what happens here and actually with these other countries. But I mean, a big note here is that this situation

Starting point is 00:12:21 is also not done in the United States. Technically, the Supreme Court didn't agree one way or another regarding the rule itself It just means that they decided that it can stay while the legal battles progress through court, right? Which could take months and still it's seen as a big win for the Trump administration Something Trump even noted on Twitter writing big United States Supreme Court win for the border on asylum Also tweeting some really big court wins on the border lately and he's really not wrong there This most recent decision follows another from the Supreme Court back in July. And that was to allow the administration

Starting point is 00:12:46 to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon money for the construction of a wall along the Mexican border. But yeah, another day, another massive change. And of course, we pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts regarding all of this? And that's where I'm going to end today's show. Also, if you're not 100% filled in, maybe you missed yesterday's show, you wanna catch up,

Starting point is 00:13:00 or you wanna check out today's brand new podcast with Casey Neistat, you can click or tap right there to watch either of those. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco, you've just been filled in, I love yo faces and I'll see you next time.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 9.12 PewDiePie Pulls Donation After Backlash, Dobrik Plane, SCOTUS Immigration Ruling, & More

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.